whether the lies told or fabrications embarked upon had any actual impact on the proceedings in question;

whether the activities of the offender drew in others

the relationship between others drawn in and the offender

the whole course of conduct

No distinction should be drawn as to level of sentence according to whether the proceedings concerned were of a civil or criminal nature. Perjury may be comparatively trivial in criminal proceedings or very serious in civil proceedings. Whether the proceedings were civil or criminal is one of the factors to be considered.

See below for details of the case

Relevant Sentencing Case LawR v Dunlop [2001] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 27. Tried twice for murder, jury failed to agree, discharged; written confession some years later. 6 years imprisonment concurrent on both counts upheld. The punishment had to be commensurate with the gravity of the original offence and yet not be seen as a punishment for that original offence.

R v Archer [2003] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 86.Appellant was the plaintiff in libel proceedings arising from newspaper allegations that he had had sexual intercourse with a prostitute. Convicted following trial on four counts and sentenced as follows:

Perverting the course of justice by procuring a false alibi - two years imprisonment.Perverting the course of justice by concealing the existence of a diary, providing his secretary with a blank diary and details to fill in, and using it as genuine - four years imprisonment.Perjury by falsely swearing an affidavit about documents in his possession - three years imprisonment.Perjury that the diary was in existence and contained certain entries - four years imprisonment.all sentences to run concurrently.

Sentences upheld on appeal.

R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 61. Kidnapped by a gang, detained overnight, subjected to violence and made to contact his partner and demand money. At their trial he gave false evidence to the effect that he had not been kidnapped and that he had instigated the violence. His defence of duress was rejected. Four years imprisonment upheld.